The postwar relationship between Iraq and the United States is now a broader public topic. This week, the White House and the Iraqi government announced that state-to-state discussions are taking place with the goal of reaching detailed agreements that will govern Iraq and America's long-term political, economic and military ties. Iraqis have asked for "an enduring relationship with America."

I use the term "broader public topic" because this matter has been a subject of constant discussion since April 2003, with little of that discussion hush-hush.

When I reported in May 2004 for duty in Iraq, the first document dropped on my desk was a draft of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546. After reading it with great interest, I discussed it with one of the very smart young majors in the Multi-National Corps-Iraq plans section. The very smart young major was already in the polymathic process of analyzing requirements and aligning "capabilities with tasks" (who will do what) in order to support the resolutions stipulation that Iraq hold "direct democratic elections ... in no case later than 31 January 2005."

David+ (#1), the radical wing of the Democrat Party snatched a long term South Vietnamese potential for establishing a democratic society from the ‘jaws of victory’ in the early 1970s through treacherous and deceitful legislation in Congress against the South Vietnamese people.

The North Vietnamese attempt to achieve victory through what they tried to call a civil war had been defeated during and after the 1968 Tet Offensive.

It was only through the massive infusion of North Vietnamese soldiers into South Vietnam and the paralysis of the South Vietnamese Army caused by VERY DELIBERATE U.S.Congressional actions to CUT OFF assistance to the South Vietnamese, that the North Vietnamese were able to CONQUER and OCCUPY South Vietnam.

As one who does believe that we now have to stay engaged in Iraq for the forseeable future, to justly avoid the charge of accessory to genocide after a premature departure, I do wonder just what are “acceptable” losses for the future. Is the current level of violence OK for 6 months or perhaps 1-2 years?

Suffice it to say, I don’t think the incoming Democrat (presumably?) president wants to be saddled with the legacy of genocide either. That’s why the dems have tried so hard to create defeat now so they can blame GWB, instead of having to deal with it in 2009 if they get the WH.

It’s also interesting to put into perspective the Vietnam history as above that many don’t know. That unneeded defeat cost this country many years of confidence. But again, for the left a confident foreign policy is what they fear most.

It would be good to see Al-Queda in Iraq defeated and driven out. But then they wouldn’t be there in the first place if the Bush Administration had not undertaken this unnecessary war and then made a mess of the occupation until recently.

Sadly, the Democrats are still trying to engineer defeat in Iraq by any means possible, the most embarrassing being the Armenian resolution which only served to further destabilize the region and trigger the last run-up in oil prices. The Democrats are now refusing to fund our troops, putting them in grave danger and continuing to encourage the terrorists. Unfortunately, the Democrats have no scruples about compromising our national security so long as it aids them politically.

Let’s hope we don’t have to repeat the same mistakes leading to our entrance into WWII. At that time the Soviet Union were “friends” of the Hitler regime and really verbally raked the Brits over for fighting against their “friends” and really badmouthed the US for supporting the Brits. Russia and Czechkoslavia were also friends. Russia didn’t say a word when Hitler crossed the Czech but boy did they scream when Hitler crossed the Russian border and suddenly buddy buddied up to the US for aid and help to overcome those nasty Germans.